All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 15, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
October 15, 2015, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You're guiding life through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, fear, the inexplicable, and yes, even the good times.
Rush Limboard.
Happy to be here, folks.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
And if you want to send an email, it's L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
In addition to the internal polling data on the economy that Trump is just killing everybody, 67% among Republican voters best equipped to deal with the economy.
You know, there's another factor in this that I think the Republican establishment, you know, not just single.
The Democrats are part of this whole mix too.
I mean, the the the Washington establishment's actually made up of both parties.
But we're talking about Republicans, that's why I've specified, but there's something else that that's driving the Trump candidacy or Trump success that I don't know if they're in denial about this at the RNC and within the party, or if they're just stubbornly saying we don't care.
But the fact that Trump isn't owned, Chamber of Commerce can't tell him what to do, not a single donor can tell him what to do.
I mean, Republican voters know full well, it makes no sense the Republican Party is for illegal immigrants.
It makes no sense at all until they hear that that's what Republican donors want.
And then they hear that Republican donors want that so they can have cheap labor.
What does the Republican establishment expect to happen?
You think Republican voters are just going to embrace candidates who seem to be running to implement the agenda of donors who have interests that are in direct contradiction to that of the people?
I mean, this is not hard to understand.
And they're making it look like it's unreal, it's not serious, Trump will burn out, he's not gonna really stay in it for the get-go.
We're the professionals at the end of the day, when they comes time to vote, people are gonna pull that lever for a seasoned political professional.
All the evidence so far is that the seasoned political professional is the least desired candidate in this cycle on the Republican side.
But my point is, in addition to everything else that Trump is doing and saying, the fact that he is not beholden to anybody, that there's no cronyism going on with Trump.
I mean, none that anybody knows anyway.
Chamber of Commerce is not for him.
Uh big donors that demand this or that uh are not are not for him, and in that sense, he comes across as independent.
But I was gonna say, in addition to the economic numbers and and the immigration numbers, in Nevada and South Carolina, Trump is enjoys 36% support, 36 and 38% support, just in the horse race section of the poll in uh in these two states.
And they're important states, and they're early, and Nevada particularly is seen as a big Democrat state because it's in many ways it's a union capital.
And uh it's rocking the boat in any number of ways.
Now, let's throw this in the mix.
You know, there's unemployment news today.
And I'm gonna read this to you.
This is from the Zero Hedge website, which we quote frequently on this program.
The headline, initial jobless claims plunge to 42-year lows, despite surging job cuts.
Now that doesn't make any sense.
The number of people filing unemployment claims is at a 42-year low.
Sorry.
No, there has to be something else to make that true.
That just can't be.
Then the second part of the headline, despite surging job cuts, meaning layoffs are happening all over this country.
People are losing their jobs left and right, and yet jobless claims are at a 42-year low.
Here's how they explain this at zero hedge.
The yawning gap between job cuts surging the most since the year 2009, meaning more jobs are being removed and cut and layoffs since 2009.
And initial jobless claims hovering near 42 year lows continues to grow as initial jobless claims collapse 7,000 this week to 255,000.
That's the lowest since 1973.
Bear in mind Goldman Sachs' explanation that jobless claims are useless in this part of the business cycle.
This does not signal a booming labor market.
Although payroll employment growth has slowed in recent months, initial claims for unemployment insurance remain very low.
The four-week moving average of initial claims is trended lower again this year despite big layoffs in energy producing states.
Does this mean that the current rate of non-farm payroll growth understates the strength of the labor market?
No, it's the exact opposite.
The bottom line is I don't care how you get there, and I don't care what numbers they want to throw out there.
This jobless claims number, people filing for unemployment compensation, does not factor in the people who have lost it after four years and are now off of the roles in terms of being counted as looking for work, so they're not being counted as unemployed, which is how you end up with a 5.1% unemployment rate when 94 million Americans aren't working.
That's the number.
People are losing their jobs.
There's not an economic boom.
There is not job creation going on.
And this too is something the American people can sense.
You know when the economy's booming.
You can't miss it.
You're in the middle of it.
You're living it, even if it's not happening to you.
You see it happening where you live.
You see it happening with people you know, either getting new jobs or getting raises, or the malls getting more crowded, or something.
You see evidence of economic growth.
By the same token, you see evidence.
Economic slowdown.
Just yesterday I didn't have a chance to get to it.
Maybe I do.
Maybe I still have the Yeah.
U.S. consumer finally losing the will to shop.
Wait a minute now.
How does this how does this make sense?
I mean, if if we have this roaring economy, if we've got this booming recovery, which Obama and these points, these boys these people love to tell us.
And the media loves to repeat it.
And how do you get stories with all these layoffs?
And U.S. consumer finally losing the will to shop.
People don't lose the will to shop.
You know, this is more idiocy.
Shopping is being treated as a capitalist activity born of excess.
Shopping is a waste of time.
Shopping is one of these evil byproducts of a capitalist society where the distributing distribution of wealth is so unfair that some people can shop and other people can't.
And so to be able to shop in the modern vernacular in the minds of American Democrats is a negative because not everybody can.
Shopping, the ability to go shopping.
Why?
That's because of the inequalities of capitalism.
So we have a headline, U.S. consumer finally losing the will to shop.
No, no.
There's a difference in shopping.
Well, there actually isn't, but this is the point.
Uh is it shopping when you go to the grocery store?
You kind of have to go there, don't you?
Well, obviously it's not as much fun, But but what is shopping versus buying?
My point here is the U.S. consumer hasn't lost the will to shop.
The U.S. consumer has less money to shop with is the point.
That's what's happening out there.
There isn't any the will to shop is probably as strong as ever and probably stronger than normal because there's less opportunity to do it.
94 million Americans not working, a lot of them live and subsist on EBD cards and food stamps and whatever, but they probably don't have a lot of disposable income.
So they don't get to go out and shop.
They'd probably love to.
They don't have the money to.
It's a story in the Financial Times.
When the going gets tough, investors have grown used to betting on the tough going shopping.
Every wobble of the past few years saw the consumer ignoring currency collapses in geopolitics.
And even government rushes with bankruptcy and instead heading for them all.
And the same has been true this year.
The best performing stocks in the U.S., the U.K., and the Eurozone are in the defensive consumer staples.
And the racier consumer discretionary sectors, almost no other sectors, manage to make money.
And It's not just the stock market that has relied on consumers.
The world has been looking to the U.S. to provide an economic lead, and U.S. growth has come mainly from consumption.
This then is not a good time for disappointing retail sales figures.
Poor data on Wednesday suggested U.S. consumer might finally be losing the will to shop with overall sales growth below forecast and sales.
So these people think that you still have the money.
Oh yeah, because everybody's working.
We got a boom going on in employment and jobs and so forth.
You're just losing the will to shop, and they're worried.
Okay, you're now hoarding your money, and they are worried.
Why?
Because you spending your money is what has led the world out of the economic doldrums.
Consumerism.
When the Democrats aren't criticizing that.
So now you have lost your will to shop.
The experts think that you've just lost the confidence, the desire.
It doesn't even occur to them that people have less disposable income with which to shop.
And this is another one of these real-world circumstances that the elites seemingly do not see that just bewilders me.
They must be telling themselves wherever they congregate, Washington, New York, Boston, wherever, and in London, they must be telling themselves that there isn't any real problem in the economy.
They're doing okay.
Everything where they live is fine.
They see the number of unemployment, 5.1%, and they actually believe it.
I uh the disconnect here is just profound, is my point.
They don't understand.
I think they it's been a long time since the political class has been as woefully out of touch with the population of a country.
I can't remember it being any bigger than it is right now.
Okay, now I want to dot the I across the T on this.
Because I have here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
A big time story from the pew for the center of people in the press, or Pew Research Center.
Headline, wealth and equality has widened along racial, ethnic lines since end of Great Recession.
Basically, they claim the Great Recession ended about a year after Obama took office, and since that time, the inequality of wealth has widened along racial and ethnic lines.
But that's not the story.
They bury the lead in their own story.
The story that they don't highlight here is how dramatically the drop in all income has been since Obama.
2007 to 2013.
That's the survey period.
The inequality gap, I mean, the the gap of wealth ethnic and and and racial lines is there.
But everybody has lost wealth in terms of median household net worth.
Every group, every quintile is down big time since Obama took office.
And it's in a chart here.
Wealth by race and ethnicity, 2007-2013.
It's in the chart.
They don't talk about it.
No, in the story, it's all about how white median household net worth is 141,900.
Hispanic median household net worth $13,700.
African American, median household net worth, 11,000.
So, to sum it up, the median white family income, 141 grand, Hispanic 13,700, blacks, 11,000.
Story, look at that.
Inequality.
Look at that.
Look at why why whites are a fewer and fewer number, and yet they've got all the money.
That's what you're supposed to conclude from this.
But if you read the whole thing, which nobody's going to do, which is why I'm telling you this.
What the real story in this is how everybody is losing household net worth.
How everybody is getting poorer.
Now, I'm not saying 141 granted poor, but everybody's losing income.
Everybody's losing net worth.
Throw the top one percent out.
I mean, that but we're just talking average ordinary everyday Americans, which is who makes up the country.
And that is the story.
But they're trying to make it look like, well, okay, so here we have the first African American president, right?
It was going to be different, right?
How does this happen?
How does the median household net worth white America 140 actually 142,000 a year?
It's 141.9.
Whites 141.9, Hispanics 13.7, blacks eleven.
I mean, how does that happen?
Why didn't Obama fix that?
Don't you think African Americans and Hispanics, if they saw this story, would be asking, well, why didn't Obama fix that?
And I guess it's a legitimate question if you think that's what Obama was elected to do, if that's why you wanted him to be president.
The real story is that everybody in America is suffering, and the point is there isn't a growing and burgeoning economy.
There isn't something roaring.
There isn't job creation whatsoever.
That's the reason I'm bringing this in to tie it in with the other two stories I've had here about the disconnect that exists between people in Washington and people in the rest of the country.
In the meantime, let me go to the phones because people have been waiting.
St. Louis, this is Peter.
Great to have you on the program, Peter, hi.
Hi, Russia.
Are you there?
Yeah, right here.
I just said hi.
1992 megadiddos, right?
Thank you very much.
So I called to just let you know that I think the Republicans got it wrong.
That they're looking at the independence as if we're moderate.
When in fact we're not.
I mean, we might be made up of part moderate.
But I myself was a Republican, but no longer.
You know, this is a good point.
I know exactly what Peter is saying here.
The Republicans are worried more about independence than they are their own voters.
I guess this is they just take for granted their own voters are going to vote for them, despite what's happened in the last two presidential races when a lot of Republican voters have not voted.
They've stayed home.
I don't know how else to explain this.
I I I I I could use names that might make the point even better, but I don't want to use names because it's not really the point.
I don't want people to lose focus on the issue by getting caught up in personnel.
But there are people whose names you see, faces you see every day on TV.
I'm that think the Republicans just have to shut up because if they oppose anything, it's going to anger the independents.
And thus they believe the independents are the reason you win or lose.
And his point is, you know, there's a lot of independents out here that are former Republicans.
We just fed up with the party.
We quit.
We're not loyal.
We're not going to identify ourselves as Republicans, but we're not moderates.
But the party may think they all are, is the point, and it would affect the way they support them.
Now the key to it is that the Republican establishment obviously thinks independents are not Republicans.
Now you might think, well, of course they're not Rush.
They're calling themselves independents.
Of course they're not Republican.
But uh you've got to follow that out.
You play that out, follow that through.
If the Republican establishment believes that the independents are not Republicans, then do they believe that they tend more toward Democrat?
Do they tend toward Republican?
Have they studied?
Do they know who the independents are?
Do they know that the independents are made up in large part of disaffected Republicans fed up and simply do not want to be identified with an R in their voter registration?
Or do they think the independents are largely Democrats?
Okay, well, no matter how you answer this, the net result is the Republican Party believes in order to get elected, it cannot be the Republican Party.
If they're going to run around and say, we can't, we can't oppose Obama, it'll upset the Independents.
No, we can't stop the Iran deal, it'll upset the Independents.
No, we can't really do anything about Obamacare because we can't stop it, and we can't override a veto, and just to put up the fight would irritate the Independents, then they obviously think the independents are not Republicans.
And yet if they think they cannot win without the independents, therefore they have to appeal to them.
What a great trick somebody has played.
Republicans, the only way you can win is to not be Republican.
And by God, the Republicans are following right along.
They're for amnesty.
They're echoing the Democrat Party on a lot of things under the premise that this is the only way they can win.
I've always thought this independent game, this notion that uh you can't win the White House without a majority of the independents has always been a trick.
And I've explained that to you countless times.
Because what it does, it when every Republican consultant believes that, every Republican campaign ends up being targeted at 20% of the population rather than all of it.
And there's no way you can win by campaigning for 20% of the population in their votes.
So it really does matter what the Republican Party thinks or who they think independents are.
Because if it is resulting in the Republican Party telling itself, you know, we we can't win being Republican.
We've either got to mask our Republicanism or ignore it or hide it.
And that means, what does that mean?
That means we've got to somehow shut up the Tea Party.
Oh my God, the Tea Party is gonna kill us.
Tea Party's gonna let everybody know that, oh God, we're conservative Republicans.
Oh no.
So they have to disavow the Tea Party.
They have to disavow conservatism because their primary objective is to tell non-Republican voters that, hey, we're not Republicans, really.
We're we're not what you think of Republicans.
I mean, it's this is a doozy of a trick that they have fallen for.
Anyway, let's head back to the phones here, because I've still got A lot of uh things to do to get to.
So really, really interesting stuff I can't wait to get to, plus your phone call.
For example, we've got Hillary Clinton soundbite.
She was she was on local TV in Vegas.
And what the infobabe in Vegas did to Hillary makes CNN look like romper room supporters.
Just wouldn't let Hillary get away with one answer to the questions that she was asked.
Hillary had no answer for some of these questions.
This local TV reporter in Vegas showed the drive-bys.
Was it Denver?
Yeah, it's K USA in Denver.
That's right.
It's K USA in Denver.
Here, since I listen, let's may as well play them.
Here we go.
Audio soundbite number 11, 12, and 13.
This is Brandon Ridman.
I'm obviously thinking of something else, because this is a guy.
And I heard there's another one up about some female reporter.
But we'll do these.
This is this is uh K USA TV.
This is their website, this is in Denver.
They released clips from an upcoming balance of power show where the host Brandon Riddeman interviewed Hillary Clinton, and they had a discussion about her email scandal.
And here is Brandon Riddman, the local reporter for Denver's K USA TV.
Here's the setup.
You used a small Denver company called Platte River Networks to manage your private server.
It appears now that data off of that server got backed up to a cloud server somewhere else without your knowledge or consent.
Platt River told me if it knew, and it's not in the business of asking, but if it knew that you were planning to send State Department type information through this system, this is not the system that they would have set you up with.
You're the nation's top diplomat in that role.
You gotta know that you know what you're sending through communications is valuable to foreign intelligence.
Why go with this system?
Did any part of you think maybe this isn't a good idea?
That's the question.
She's never been asked that question that way.
And here's her answer.
She had no answer.
Well, look, I've taken responsibility uh for what I did, and it was a mistake.
The State Department allowed it uh at the time.
Uh, and I've tried to be as transparent as possible.
I'll be appearing before the Congress next week and answering a lot of questions uh that they may have, although now it's clear that uh this whole effort was set up uh for political partisan purposes, not to try to get to any useful end.
Uh but uh, you know, I'll be in a position to respond, and uh the American people can uh listen and watch and uh draw their own conclusions.
So she didn't say a word.
He he describes her setup as being vulnerable, that the company that set it up would not have set it up the way they did if she had told them classified data was going to be on it.
Did any part of you think maybe what you were doing wasn't a good idea?
Well, look, I've taken responsibility for what I did, and it was a mistake.
Okay, done.
She's apologized, leave her alone, is what the Democrats say.
The State Department had allowed it at the time, it wasn't anything wrong, see.
And I've tried to be as transparent as possible.
What more do you people want?
I'll be appearing before Congress next week and answering a lot of questions they may have, although now it's clear this whole effort was set up for partisan political purposes.
So none of this is legitimate, and now you're trying to get me.
You're no better than these Republicans, Mr. Local Reporter.
That's how the Clinton technique is.
You know this partisan political last time I heard that phrase.
You will marvel here at my and at my memory.
It was during the Dan Rather fake documents, George W. Bush, National Guard story.
And after the documents had been exposed as forged, and it was done by the power line guys and a guy named Charles Johnson, who had a blog at the time.
He may still have it, I don't know, little green footballs.
But they found a number of ways.
In fact, the the these documents used a font in Microsoft Word that did not exist at the time George Bush was in the National Guard.
I mean, it was just totally made up, forged documents.
And it was clear that the guy trying to sell them to CBS as far as not for money, but convince them to use this Bill Burkett.
Um elevator didn't go to the top floor there, is an order of fries short of a happy meal.
And yet they relied on the guy.
So after all of this had been exposed, and Dan Rather is still anchoring the CBS evening news.
One particularly devastating day for Dan Radder when more evidence of the forgery and how it was done had been in the news that day.
Dan Rather opened his newscast that night with the phrase partisan political operatives today of saying that we at CBS engaged these partisan political operatives are nevertheless attempting to cast versions on that which we do here at CBS News.
Partisan political operatives.
And that became the way they tried to extricate them.
That phrase partisan political operatives is supposed to convey to undecided or low information voters that a bunch of mean extremists are out to get the good guys.
So now here's Hillary using the phrase partisan political operatives.
You um listen closely and you will hear people on the left use that phrase often to try to discredit their critics as another partisan political operatives today said further evidence exists that we at CBS forged an argument.
Well, I always tell these partisan political operatives a thing or two.
If that's true, I want to break that story.
Hey, Earth to Dan.
You want to break he actually said that too.
He actually, if this is true, if we if this doctor, Mr. Ford's partisan political operatives, hey, then I want to break that story.
Dan the story's broken, dude.
And you're done just and it was so you know, Dan Rather had a capacity to be one of the nicest guys on earth.
But he was, he was the partisan here.
And Mary Mapes was the partisan.
Bill Burkett was the insane partisan, but they were the partisans.
These bloggers, I mean, they were just getting started.
And it was it was the way they put themselves on the map.
So anyway, here's Mrs. Clinton.
Well, you know, uh, it's been clear this whole effort was set up for partisan political purposes.
Anyway, the reporter now, Brandon Riddman, after Hillary didn't answer and evaded his question, came back and they had this little exchange.
Yeah, but to someone who thinks that that might have been a the a foolish move, what would you say about your judgment generally?
Well, nothing I sent or received was marked classified at the time.
That is an absolute fact.
It's been verified over and over and over again.
Um so I think that we'll have a chance to explain what that means if people don't understand it.
Why don't you do it now?
That's that's another misdirection obfuscation.
Well, whoa, I mean, nothing I sent or received was marked classified at the time, it's an absolute fact that's been verified over.
No, no, no.
That's it.
It's just an out and out lie.
At the level of Secretary of State, the assumption is that everything going back and forth is classified.
It doesn't have to be marked.
That's the rule of thumb.
And here she is, well, it didn't say classified on it, so I didn't worry about she making herself out to be an absolute hick idiot and relying on that to extricate herself from the problem.
Because in your job, let me just ask you, do you ever see emails marked classified top secret?
Of course not.
It means nothing ever is.
Same in Hillary's job, see.
If it didn't say classified on it, it wasn't classified.
Everybody knows that, and it's been established time and time and time again.
And I'll explain that next week when it comes time to appear before the committee.
Everybody knows that, and that's how you.
This is Clinton 101.
And shutting this up down.
But the point is, this guy in Denver did a better job interrogating her on this and trying to get to the heart of the issue than anybody, including the Republican committees yet have.
No, no, no, you never.
It's just like no one ever leaves the KGB.
You never escape the Kardashians.
look what the Kardashians end up doing to guys, folks.
I mean, this is just if you look at it in a in a certain way, it is mind boggling.
You're poor old Lamar Odom, and now he goes to one of those bunny ranches out there and just puts every drug known to man in his system along with some cognac and some herbal Viagra.
And now he's in a coma.
And and the Kardashians are gathered at the at the hospital, but he can't even I Well.
And then you have Bruce Jenner became Caitlin Jenner.
Uh it's man, it's dicey.
Really dicey.
Now, um one thing I'm I need to be clear on this Bill Burkett, the forgery.
It was actually the first person to discover the font was a Microsoft word font that didn't exist when Bush was in the National Guard, was actually a uh uh person at Free Republic named Buckhead.
It was a freeper that exposed this.
So what the what the power line guys who have created a GIF file that showed the difference in the fonts, the Microsoft Word font and what an IBM typewriter of the day would actually have looked like, show the difference.
But it was a freeper that came up with the discovery of the forgery.
Freeper named Burkead.
And uh that's well known.
And I simply, in the interest of the economy of time, race through that didn't specify uh that when talking about the power line guys.
Here's um Cuan.
Cuan in uh in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi there.
Just so so thrilled to be able to have be able to speak with you.
Thank you.
Um I am a registered nurse and a mother living in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
And the point that I want to make or the comment that I want to make um today directly is related to some of the points you just made regarding the disparity between the political class and the working class, and I think that's something that needs to be recognized is that our country in the time that it was founded and our constitution was created as a government for the people by the people, and that's because at that time those people were the people, and they weren't far removed from what it was like to live in their shoes.
But our uh uh wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, just that's not I hate I hate this.
That's not entirely true.
It's what makes them even more remarkable.
They were the elites of their day intellectually, and a lot of them were very wealthy.
That's what makes it remarkable what they did, even more so.
They they were they were an elite group, but they were of and by and for the people, nevertheless.
They did not think themselves better.
And that's your point.
Exactly.
All right.
Um, so then my point is that where we sit now, there are so many people sitting in our political um establishment who maybe have never even experienced what it's like to be working paycheck to paycheck or to choose which bill this month you don't you can't afford to pay,
um, or or those kind of things that that the everyday American voters experience and this discrepancy that exists between what the people are actually experiencing and what the political imagines that they're experiencing or or perceives that they're experiencing is very evident, and I think that that includes the the Republican establishment as well.
And then we have the the factor that we know as you've said many, many a times, that we have a very powerful media that is powerfully influential of what the people believe, in that they can even convince a group of people who are living in a current situation that the situation isn't as it is.
And they're so very powerful to convince people um of what to believe and what to feel and and how things are going and what other people are feeling, and that really is influential in in how it propagates out the the um Yeah, well you know let me tell you what's remarkable about that.
That's that's exactly right, and those same people have been trying to convince people the media, been trying to convince people that Trump ought not be supported, ought to go and it's not working.
They're not listening to the media.
They're supporting Trump anyway, and that's a that's an interesting point.
Now take a break, folks, back after the You know, if Lamar Odom happened to be a conservative Republican out there at the Bunny Ranch, whatever it is, do you think the media might be mentioning that?
▲
Export Selection